Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

American society wrongly incorporated slavery, but it was not wholly built on the back thereof. Take this 1619 BS elsewhere.

---

Take a wild guess at what constituted the most valuable asset and most valuable crop in 1860.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

---

Yes.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

American society wrongly incorporated slavery, but it was not wholly built on the back thereof. Take this 1619 BS elsewhere.

---

Take a wild guess at what constituted the most valuable asset and most valuable crop in 1860.

---

I don't have to. It was tobacco, and I know who did the hard labor. My point still stands. America was not wholly founded on slavery. The 1619 project remains bunk, pseudo-intellectual garbage, and you can't muster a coherent argument without cherry picking.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

Sure Satanists can be right wing libertarians. Whoever idolizes the self is in communion with Satan. That's just how the story goes. It's just obvious that the current trend in liberal culture is worshipping the self. Be whatever you want to be, God loves you exactly how you are, give into your desires, etc.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

American society wrongly incorporated slavery, but it was not wholly built on the back thereof. Take this 1619 BS elsewhere.

---

Take a wild guess at what constituted the most valuable asset and most valuable crop in 1860.

---

I don't have to. It was tobacco, and I know who did the hard labor. My point still stands. America was not wholly founded on slavery. The 1619 project remains bunk, pseudo-intellectual garbage, and you can't muster a coherent argument without cherry picking.

---

It was cotton. No one said it was "wholly founded on slavery." The 1619 Project didn't say that, though I didn't even bring it up. The wealth and economic success of Europe and the US was built on slavery and exploitation of others. That's not debatable. It's a simple fact.

---

Apologies. I missed the date. I concede cotton by the 1860s. You are still painting with a broad brush. Exploitation built every civilization. That is a unifying human theme not specific to Europe and the U.S. Truth is that the Europeans and Americans corrected the sin. We even fought a war to defeat it.

All things are debatable, professor. And facts, as you see them, are subject to revision through a modern lens. How woke. Many factors built American and European power. It can't be simply distilled down to slavery/exploitation.

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AggieRain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

American society wrongly incorporated slavery, but it was not wholly built on the back thereof. Take this 1619 BS elsewhere.

---

Take a wild guess at what constituted the most valuable asset and most valuable crop in 1860.

---

I don't have to. It was tobacco, and I know who did the hard labor. My point still stands. America was not wholly founded on slavery. The 1619 project remains bunk, pseudo-intellectual garbage, and you can't muster a coherent argument without cherry picking.

---

It was cotton. No one said it was "wholly founded on slavery." The 1619 Project didn't say that, though I didn't even bring it up. The wealth and economic success of Europe and the US was built on slavery and exploitation of others. That's not debatable. It's a simple fact.

---

Apologies. I missed the date. I concede cotton by the 1860s. You are still painting with a broad brush. Exploitation built every civilization. That is a unifying human theme not specific to Europe and the U.S. Truth is that the Europeans and Americans corrected the sin. We even fought a war to defeat it.

All things are debatable, professor. And facts, as you see them, are subject to revision through a modern lens. How woke. Many factors built American and European power. It can't be simply distilled down to slavery/exploitation.

---

I didn't say it was the only factor, but it was far more important than most seem willing to admit.

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

---

Yes.

---

Flat earth level trutherism. Kudos

---

Serfs, slaves, and colonized people forced to work and fight. Did you really think it came from rich people thinking things? That's cute.

---

Oh okay, you're talking about how every civilization came to be. Not just western civilization. Yes I agree.

---

I'm not even sure I entirely agree. I think through our post-"enlightenment" lens we assume that those people placed the higher value on "freedom" rather than such things as order and security. So forced may not even be the right word to use.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

---

Yes.

---

Flat earth level trutherism. Kudos

---

Serfs, slaves, and colonized people forced to work and fight. Did you really think it came from rich people thinking things? That's cute.

---

Oh okay, you're talking about how every civilization came to be. Not just western civilization. Yes I agree.

---

I'm not even sure I entirely agree. I think through our post-"enlightenment" lens we assume that those people placed the higher value on "freedom" rather than such things as order and security. So forced may not even be the right word to use.

---

Forced is the right word. Ever read up on the Belgian Congo?

If the US is/was so terrible and oppressive, why are/were millions of people willing to risk their lives and fortunes to come here?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

---

Yes.

---

Flat earth level trutherism. Kudos

---

Serfs, slaves, and colonized people forced to work and fight. Did you really think it came from rich people thinking things? That's cute.

---

Oh okay, you're talking about how every civilization came to be. Not just western civilization. Yes I agree.

---

I love how western civilization is "exceptional" until it isn't.

---

Western civilization is exceptional for the societies it has created. And as Rebel has pointed out, much of it can hardly be characterized as forced labor.

dermdoc said:

---

Slavery and what happened in the Belgian Congo were horrible. How long ago was that? When can we move on? What do we have to do?

---

These are the questions that Sapper won't answer. It is frustrating because it is easy to pick apart the atrocities of the past. The hard work is moving on, though most of American did a long while back. Others would have us fight a continual race war because it profits them to do so.

So again, Sapper...how would you structure "moving on"? What does it look like to you?

dermdoc said:

---

If the US is/was so terrible and oppressive, why are/were millions of people willing to risk their lives and fortunes to come here?

---

You're jumping to weird conclusions.
1. I haven't said there are no good things here.
2. Acknowledging the reality of the past is a good thing that helps address problems. If you aren't okay with that, ask yourself why.
3. People in bad spots look for new spots. Other places being worse doesn't change what happened here. We also have a history in the 20th century of actively making other places worse and creating the conditions that lead people to leave.

AggieRain said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Slavery and what happened in the Belgian Congo were horrible. How long ago was that? When can we move on? What do we have to do?

---

These are the questions that Sapper won't answer. It is frustrating because it is easy to pick apart the atrocities of the past. The hard work is moving on, though most of American did a long while back. Others would have us fight a continual race war because it profits them to do so.

So again, Sapper...how would you structure "moving on"? What does it look like to you?

---

Does "moving on" to you mean ignoring what happened and pretending it has no current consequences? Is it that hard to admit that colonialism created horrible conditions that made it virtually impossible for suddenly freed countries to succeed?

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't associate with liberals in real life beyond those I am forced to interact with at work.

---

I think it's an extremely important thing to talk to and even more importantly listen to those that you disagree with. I'd encourage you to grow and do so. Maybe you'd learn that liberals in real life are not Marxists, Satanists, or whatever other Boogeymen you've made them out to be in your mind.

---

Satanists are typically liberal because that political platform is associated with the ultimate freedom of the individual which has many Satanic elements. It's not some dark twisted pentagram thing. It's simply trying to make the world into an image of the self and not God.

---

So wouldn't Satan be a right wing libertarian? Liberal policies are designed to promote the well-being of all (I'm not arguing whether they work or not, just that's the goal) and limit the promotion of the self at the expense of others.

---

This is the catch though. "Conservative" has been redefined. I remember growing up, they pretended to care about "limited government" and "individual freedom". Those were the alleged hallmarks of conservatism. Now, though, that's all been exposed to be a fraud, so they redefine it to having nothing to do with "individual freedom", but about conserving a "moral" society (ignoring the fact that we've never had a moral society to conserve). So now they brand libertarians as liberals (although they would actually be closest to classical liberals) because they promote the very things that conservatives used to claim to support.

---

conservatism has never been about limited government or individual freedom, rather those are benefits of a conservative society.

---

Name one conservative society where that's true.

---

Hungary, Singapore, Western civilization before it went crazy.

---

So Hungary, which is not a representative government and does not have freedom for all. Singapore. Another government that is not free and severely limits rights. And "western civilization." I'm guessing it went "crazy" after it gave up empires and slavery?

---

Started going crazy in the early 20th century, went overboard during the sexual revolution, we have now entered the Weimar Republic phase.

---

So it was a conservative model during the centuries of slavery and imperialism?

---

Yes. Slavery in itself is not conservative, but the times in which it were prevalent were more conservative times.

---

So a society who built its wealth on the lives and liberties of others is your model. Good to know.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you claiming western civilization is the product of free manual labor?

---

Yes.

---

Flat earth level trutherism. Kudos

---

Serfs, slaves, and colonized people forced to work and fight. Did you really think it came from rich people thinking things? That's cute.

---

Oh okay, you're talking about how every civilization came to be. Not just western civilization. Yes I agree.

---

I'm not even sure I entirely agree. I think through our post-"enlightenment" lens we assume that those people placed the higher value on "freedom" rather than such things as order and security. So forced may not even be the right word to use.

---

Forced is the right word. Ever read up on the Belgian Congo?

---

Ever read up on the Aztecs? Or Murghal Empire? Or Golden Horde, or ancient Egypt, or Mansa Musa, or another billion examples that were worse?

---

Cool. So western civilization is on par with the Aztecs?

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

If the US is/was so terrible and oppressive, why are/were millions of people willing to risk their lives and fortunes to come here?

---

You're jumping to weird conclusions.
1. I haven't said there are no good things here.
2. Acknowledging the reality of the past is a good thing that helps address problems. If you aren't okay with that, ask yourself why.
3. People in bad spots look for new spots. Other places being worse doesn't change what happened here. We also have a history in the 20th century of actively making other places worse and creating the conditions that lead people to leave.

---

With all due respect, when have you ever talked about anything good about the US? You and I have sparred for years and I honestly can never remember you ever praising the US.